Humankind always has struggled to achieve the ideal balance between the needs and desires of the individual and those of the community as a whole needed to solve societal problems. The representative form of democracy seen today has been the most effective attempt at finding this balance and solving the problems different societies face. The influences that developed this form, a republic, are found in ancient Greece and Rome, and were further developed later on during the rise of Judeo-Christian ideals and during the Enlightenment.
Greco-Roman philosophers laid the foundation for ideas creating republic such as the rule of law, individualism, and separation of powers through an emphasis on reason. The rule of law was created and developed
…show more content…
Two of the most prominent philosophers to elaborate on these concepts were John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, two post-civil war, English writers during the mid-1600s. Both Locke and Hobbes talked about how men act naturally and how that plays into politics and government. Locke believed in three key rights, life, liberty, and property, governing by popular consent, and the right of citizens to rebel against unjust rulers who didn’t protect their rights. Hobbes, on the other hand, saw humankind's natural state in a more negative light, believing that the only way to prevent chaos in society was to be governed by an absolute monarchy, or “social contract”. In the following century, France was facing its own political turmoil due to a negligent aristocracy. The French Enlightenment’s famous “philosophes” built on the English’s ideals, suiting them to their national issues. The satirical writings of Voltaire involving his emphasis on freedom of speech can be summed up by his quote “I do not agree with a word you say but will defend to the death your right to say it”. Montesquieu believed Britain’s government to be ideal, especially in respects to the separation of powers. Democracy wouldn’t work in society due to “private interests in public affairs,” according to Rousseau. Similarly, the Italian philosopher Beccaria, focused on justice and laws. Influential points he made included needing basic rights to make the justice system fair, and the responsibility of the people to follow the laws given by the government. These concepts were some of the results of hundreds of years of philosophy, and are closest to the ways government is
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself.
In The Republic by Plato, Plato constructed an ideal city where Philosophers would rule. Governed by an aristocratic form of government, it took away some of the most basic rights a normal citizen should deserve, freedom of choice, worship, and assembly were distressed. Though the idea of philosopher kings is good on paper, fundamental flaws of the human kind even described by Plato himself prevent it from being truly successful. The idea of an ideal democratic government like what our founding fathers had envisioned is the most successful and best political form which will ensure individual freedom and keep power struggle to a minimum.
"United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy. The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality. The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy or the First Party System to Jacksonian Democracy or the Second Party System and later to the Third Party System. In Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens, and they were given the vote as well." (Web, 1)
The thirteenth through the eighteenth century brought profound changes in the political realm of Western civilization. Beginning with the Scientific Revolution and only advancing during the Renaissance, secularization and skepticism lead to changes in not only the intellectual life of Westerners, but also to their politics. At the forefront of the political debate were well-versed men such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The influences of these men, though often criticized, can clearly be seen in the centuries and decades following their noted works. Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau shared many concepts, but the similarities between their theories end at the word politics. Each had different ideas. Rousseau's and Locke's ideas appear to be wishful thinking while Hobbes's ideas seem to be too cynical. Machiavelli's ideas seem practical for his day and for an authoritarian government, but definitely not for a democratic system such as ours. I believe that the most accurate view for a successful society lies somewhere in between Hobbes's cynicism and Locke's optimism. Regardless as to who is most accurate, it is obvious that Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all shaped modern political theories by their views.
Throughout this paper I plan to compare and contrast the ideas and philosophies of two of the greatest political thinkers of all time. Thucydides and Aristotle have separate opinions of the idea of democracy, originally created by Plato. However, these two have a positive assessment of this idea of majority rule of the people. My paper will provide each of their points of view. At the end I will determine, in my opinion, which of these two philosophers give a better case in favor of a democratic form of government, and give the reasons as to how I came to that conclusion.
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
... middle of paper ... ... In conclusion, the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had a profound effect on the methods of government used. Through analyzing both philosopher’s perceptions of the nature of the human person and the relationship between government and society, it is evident that their philosophies have a tremendous impact.
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are both known for their works regarding political philosophy. They appear to be on opposite ends of a spectrum as far as how much power a government or sovereign can rightfully posses. Hobbes sits on the end of the spectrum that has strong government power — at an almost unbearable level. He takes the time to gloss over how power of government should be the most absolute force guiding the public. In contrast, Locke is much more in favor of giving the government only some power over its people. Locke also goes into great detail on how this can and should be accomplished, a contrast from Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both argue for two very different types of government — Hobbes an absolute sovereignty, and Locke a much more limited government, outlined with checks and balances.
I think people are jerks because...not everyone can be nice and kind to one or other. There some people who would like to do whatever they like to do. For examples: There's people who would do steal, murder, rape, and sell drugs on the street. It’s pretty evil and dangerous for the people who are doing these kinda things.
Human nature and its relevance in determining behaviors, predictions, and conclusions has caused dispute among philosophers throughout the ages. Political philosophy with its emphasis on government legitimacy, justice, laws, and rights guided the works of the 17th and 18th century philosophical writings of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Through Thomas Hobbes world-renowned publication Leviathan and Rousseau’s discourses on basic political principals and concepts, each man validated their thoughts on human nature and what is required for a successful society within their respective government confines. The distinct differences between Hobbes and Rousseau’s opinions on the natural state of man frame the argument of the different parenting styles the each man would inevitably apply towards raising a child. Raising a child is a timeless analogy that can be used to contrast the education and discipline that one would apply in the endless situations life provides.
Many philosophers have tried to define the characteristics of human nature and the society that best fit this description. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two of these philosophers that take contrasting views on the state of human nature, natural law, and the social contract between beings. While there are many differences in their assertions, there are also a few similarities. These two philosophies can be evaluated to come to the conclusion that the Second Treatise on Government is a more accurate description than that of the Leviathan. In this essay, I will discuss the aspects of both the Leviathan and the Second Treatise on Government and the rationale for my conclusion that John Locke’s society is a more correct characterization of mankind using state of nature, natural law, and the social contract made between the citizens and the governing officials.
Two of the greatest philosophers of all time are Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. Hobbes was born in 1588 in England, when absolutism was taking hold in Europe. His most famous work was 'Leviathan', written in 1651. Hobbes discussed the ideal state and innate laws of man and nature, among other things. Machiavelli was born in Italy in 1469, a time when his home country was ruled mostly by foreign powers. His hometown, Florence, was still independent. Machiavelli's most famous work, 'The Prince', tells of his ideal state and ideal ruler. Machiavelli goes on to describe the perfect prince, a picture of cruelty and cunning. Though both genius philosophers, their views differ greatly. Hobbes believed in a minimalist government where the state only interfered with the lives of the citizens when it had to. The ideal kingdom was the kingdom of God, in Hobbes' mind. In Machiavelli's 'The Prince', he describes his ideal government with a strong monarch, and fearful subjects. In Hobbes' system, a close relationship was kept with God, while in Machiavelli's reason was the only rule. The most important and most dealt-with area of dialogue is the 'ideal' government.
For thousands of years, democracy has been the most acclaimed form of government. From the agoras of Athens, where democracy first erupted, to our current world, democracy has been a decisive element in modern world politics. The term democracy translates to “rule of the people”, a system where eligible citizens are able to decide through a common vote. However, democracy has radically evolved over the centuries, and so did the negative aspects of it. First, we must state what is considered an “effective political system” and why democracy is, or isn’t, the most effective system of governance today.